New from Cambridge University Press!

Sociolinguistics from the Periphery "presents a fascinating book about change: shifting political, economic and cultural conditions; ephemeral, sometimes even seasonal, multilingualism; and altered imaginaries for minority and indigenous languages and their users."

Jason Doroga, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Wisconsin-Madison

SUMMARY

This volume contains a selection of 24 papers that were presented at theinternational conference ''Formal Linguistics and the Teaching of Latin'' held inVenice from November 18-20, 2010. The main theme of the conference was exploringhow achievements in modern formal linguistics may help explain the syntax ofClassical Latin (CL). Taken as a whole, this volume champions a generativistapproach to language instruction because it encourages the development ofmeta-linguistic competence and understanding of grammar. Additionally, theauthors included here demonstrate that the comparative method (i.e. comparingthe grammatical system of modern languages to that of Latin) is a productiveteaching practice. This volume is divided into three sections: i. syntax andmorphology; ii. semantics and pragmatics; and iii. methodological pedagogy.

In the Introduction (1-20), Giuliana Giusti and Renato Oniga argue that theuniversal properties of sentence structure restrict the number of options forarranging the elements of discourse. They argue that traditional notions of'subject' and 'predicate' do not reflect the reality of how languages codegrammatical information, and that even beginning students should be introducedto the formal properties of syntactic structure. Ideally, language instructionincreases the meta-linguistic awareness of the learner by articulating theparameters of the native language first, and then highlighting the differencesin the parameters of the target language with the native language of the student.

Section I is the most extensive section of the volume and is dedicated to syntaxand morphology (21-224). It focuses on crucial problems of Latin grammar such asword order, phrase and clause structure, prefixation, and word composition. Twoexploratory studies provide an overview of Latin word order. Giampaolo Salvi(23-50) rejects the notion that Latin word order is substantially free, andsuggests that even without the ability to determine the spoken intonationalpatterns of Latin, the study of the possible permutations of word order shouldbe connected to the study of pragmatic functions such as focalization andtopicalization. Another overview of the study of Latin word order is provided byConcepción Cabrillana (65-84), who summarizes the major contributions ofstructural, typological, and functional approaches to word order. The authorrecommends an integrated theory that takes into account pragmatic and semanticfactors.

Rossella Iovino (51-63) looks specifically at the syntax of Latindemonstratives. Despite the apparent arbitrariness of pre- and post-noun wordorder, she demonstrates that these pronouns always occupy the specifier positionof a functional projection, both in marked and unmarked cases. This hypothesisis supported using data from modern Romance languages (especially the Romaniandemonstrative article 'cel') as well as evidence from other Indo-Europeanlanguages.

The aim of Imre Szilágyi's study (85-100) is to explain the factors thatcontribute to the decline of CL accusative with infinitive structure (AcI) (e.g.PUER DICIT SE LIBRUM LEGISSE 'The boy says that he has read the book'), whichconsists of a main/governing verb, an infinitive, and an accusative subject. Theoverwhelming preference in Romance is the control infinitive structure (e.g. ''Ilragazzo dice di aver letto il libro''), in which the interpretation of theunexpressed subject of the infinitive is controlled by one of the constituentsof the main clause. CL demonstrated a certain vacillation between AcI andcontrol constructions, though the author identifies the contexts that favoredthe latter, including the interaction of impersonal verbs with an indirectobject and ellipses of the infinitive. Francesco Costantini's article (101-115)looks specifically at the IUBEO ('to order') construction and points out that itdoes not conform to the behavior of other AcI-selecting verbs when used withagentive subjects. By demonstrating the monoclausality of IUBEO structures, theauthor concludes that in some cases IUBEO is a causative verb that does not havefull lexical value, similar to the FACERE + infinitive construction thatsurvives in modern Romance.

Anna Pompei (117-132) analyzes the semantics of relative clauses in Latin. Thedifferences between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses in Latin are notmarked by suprasegmental features, such as intonational contours (as far as wecan tell), nor by morphosyntactic constraints, as they are in English. However,this article suggests that a third category of classification applies to Latin,namely 'maximalizing' relative clauses that are compatible only with universalquantifiers, are resistant to stacking, and may be introduced by the quantifiersQUISQUIS and QUICUMQUE ('whoever'). These types of clauses are internallyheaded, and the semantic content of these relative constructions lies solelywithin the relative clause.

Silvia Pieroni (133-149) studies the absolute gerund construction in CL andaddresses the problem of identifying the subject of the gerund in these types ofsentences. Focusing on the active/middle/passive opposition, she argues that atraditional approach that relies on morphology to determine subject/objectrelationships must be 'decomposed' in order to focus on the relationship amongthe syntactic elements of the sentences. Only by looking at the opposition ofpassives and non-passives from a syntactic rather than a morphological point ofview can the subjects of gerunds be correctly interpreted.

A contrastive study in mood selection in Greek and Latin is the focus ofKonstantin G. Krasukhin's study (151-171). Using numerous textual examples toillustrate his main conclusions, the author determines that the subjunctive ispartially grammaticalized in Latin, whereas in Greek, it is more semantic.Additionally, Greek relies on aspect for tense selection rather than on thesequence of tenses, which is one of the most characteristic features of Latinsyntax. A final difference is that iterative sentences in Latin always use theindicative, whereas in Greek, the optative (subjunctive) is used.

Karin Tikkanen (173-186) studies the genitive case in Latin and Oscan/Umbrian(grouped collectively here as 'Sabellian languages') and finds that the syntaxof the genitive case in the Sabellian languages shows particular characteristicsthat are different from Latin. For example, two constructions in Oscan are notattested in CL: i. the absolute genitive; and ii. genitives with adpositions.She argues that phonological and morphological factors (including themaintenance of the locative in Oscan) help explain the discrepancy within thesyntax of the genitive case.

Word formation and derivation are the focus of the final three articles ofSection I. Vladimir Panov (187-199) surveys the role verbal prefixes play inaspectual semantics. He demonstrates that the prefixes in PER-FICERE ('tocomplete') and COM-PLACERE ('to please exceedingly') are grammaticalized formsoriginating from prefixes of motion that have acquired perfective meanings, aphenomenon richly attested in Slavic verb morphology. Ágnes Jekl (201-214)focuses on the modern Italian reflexes of the CL prefix EX- and demonstratesthat it has lost the semantic sense of 'upward movement' (EXTOLLO 'to lift up')and 'change of state' (EXCANDESCO 'to become hot') in modern Italian. She alsodemonstrates that the most prototypical meaning of EX- has shifted from'separation' in CL (EDUCO 'to draw out') to 'negation' in modern Italian('scaricare', 'to discharge'). The author concludes that the only productivereflex in modern Italian is s-, which has become one of the most productiveprefixes in the language. Finally, Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead (215-224) looksat the origin of Latin compound nouns (VERTICORDIA 'turner of hearts';FLEXANIMUS 'moving, touching') and shows that Greek nominal compounds wereborrowed less often than other morphological types, thus disproving the allegedGreek influence of Latin compounding. Her corpus-based study reveals that a moreformal register is a significant predictor of higher frequency of concatenativemorphology.

Section II (227-315) is dedicated to studies on semantics and pragmatics, with aspecial emphasis on figurative language. William Michael Short (227-244)demonstrates that a large part of the Latin lexicon expressing mental activityis expressed metaphorically in terms of movement in physical space. The authordemonstrates that Latin speakers regularly used expressions such as ANIMUMADVERTERE ('turn the mind toward') to describe 'acquiring information' or'paying attention'. The author exhorts language instructors to highlight thebenefit of this metaphorical competence because it is crucial for competency ina language.

Ioana-Rucsandra Dascalu (245-254) demonstrates the importance of contextualizingdifferent figures of speech, such as metonymy and hyperbole, in order tounderstand Latin love poetry. Furthermore, David B. Wharton (255-277) addressesthe semantics of HORROR and how it is defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Latin(ODL). He suggests that the order of the definitions for HORROR is misleadingfor the modern student. The first definition provided by the ODL is not the mostprototypical, nor is it the most frequent. Wharton suggests that dictionariesmark context-dependent uses in entries so as not to present a distorted pictureof the word's internal semantic relations.

The next article, by Sophie Van Laer (279-299), explores new possibilities ofCulioli's (1991) work on the classification of French nouns into/discrete-dense-compact/ categories. In this system, traditional count nouns(e.g. 'book', 'cat') are members of the /discrete/ category, nouns that arecontinuous entities that cannot be divided are /compact/ (e.g. 'sadness'), andcontinuous entities that can be divided or quantified are /dense/ nouns (e.g.'milk'). This article shows that this tripartite division applies to Latin nounsand helps us understand the quantification patterns of CL. She also extends thisclassification to Latin verbs, suggesting that it may explain the variation inmeaning displayed in frequentative verbs. Ilaria Torzi (301-315) concludes thissection with a study of the early commentaries on Virgil, in particular, thevarious pragmalinguistic interpretations of Virgil's transition words (such asPOSTQUAM, AT, INTEREA) in his epic.

Bernard Bortolussi's (319-342) article opens the final section of the volumewith the provocative hypothesis that there are no exceptions in a generativegrammar of Latin (333). His article explores the role of Latin examples informalizing Latin grammar and understanding the difference between competencyand performance. The generativist tradition does not rely on isolated corpusexamples to create a grammar, but rather on the 'anti-example' (i.e. anunattested, recreated example) to verify linguistic hypotheses.

The concept of Universal Grammar and its role in language acquisition issummarized by Ugo Cardinale (343-353). Language instruction (for both classicaland modern languages) should focus on understanding how the mind organizesgrammatical relationships first, and then on showing how individual languagesencode that information. This approach is also applicable to improvingtranslation competence, a fact that is highlighted in the article by AndreaBalbo (371-392). A third article about the mental mechanisms of language is byDavide Astori (355-369). He presents a model for teaching some aspects of theLatin case system within a Universal Grammar framework that is successful in anItalian high school curriculum. Finally, Piervincenzo Di Terlizzi (393-399)outlines a practical syllabus for integrating terms and concepts of GenerativeGrammar into a high school classroom.

The history of Latin instruction in Slovenia is discussed by Matjaž Babič(401-412). Even though Tesnière (1959) outlined his verb-oriented model ofsyntax over fifty years ago, Babič still finds it relevant for the classroombecause of its unified approach to syntax. Similarly, Evalda Paci (413-427)discusses the history of Latin instruction in Albania, highlighting scholarlypublications on Latin pedagogy and translation from that country.

Anna Cardinaletti (429-444) concludes the volume with a summary of thecontributions of formal linguistic theory to language pedagogy. She describeshow a new approach to language acquisition is possible as a result of formallinguistic theory from the past fifty years. Specifically, language instructionthat utilizes the principles and parameters theory, coupled with a comparativeapproach to language teaching, facilitates acquisition by activating ''rules''that are already present in the mental grammar of the learner. She also arguesfor a greater consistency in terminology to describe the same linguisticphenomena across languages.

EVALUATION

This volume has two main goals: the first one is to explain long-studiedproblems of Latin syntax from a generativist point of view, and the second oneis to improve the teaching of Latin by including formal linguistics as part ofthe curriculum. There have been few previous attempts to combine these twodifferent areas in a single volume, but for the most part these two goals arenot integrated successfully here. In general, the articles that deal with formallinguistics and the instruction of Latin are more successful than the articleson Latin syntax.

One of the most important achievements of formal linguistics is providing a moreaccurate understanding of grammar as it is conceptualized in the mind, and manyof the articles in Section III suggest that introducing the basics of syntacticstructure in language courses is an efficient technique that may facilitatelanguage acquisition. For example, Cardinale (347) demonstrates that thetraditional notion of 'subject as agent' is inadequate for understanding thesimple Latin sentence SERVUS VAPULAT ('the servant is being caned'). As hepoints out, this example can be better explained by using thematic theory, whichdescribes syntactic phenomena as a more precise (and more logical) way. The moresuccessful articles in this volume demonstrate that teaching with traditionalnotions of grammar often leads to needless confusion and provides nosatisfactory explanation for seemingly straight-forward sentences. Languageteachers need to present grammar in a way that reflects the way information isorganized in the mind of the speaker (or writer). This idea is repeated inseveral articles and is the most important contribution of this volume as awhole. Additionally, the volume rightly observes that the widening gap ofclassical and modern language instruction should be closed. For obvious reasons,CL will never lend itself to a communicative approach; however, modern languageinstruction should not necessarily shun the inclusion of formal syntax.

There are several reasons why the first goal of the volume is not as successful.The main reason for this is a lack of a clear explanation of how thegenerativist program may help clarify traditional problems of Latin syntax. Forexample, the articles devoted to explaining Latin word order (a notoriouslythorny problem from any approach) offer few specific conclusions and do notprovide enough evidence from a generativist perspective to support the tentativeconclusions offered. As several articles rightly point out, pragmatic andstylistic issues are core concepts that must be addressed as part of adiscussion of word order. For example, Cabrillana (65-84) notices thatverb-initial sentences (as opposed to the more frequent verb-final sentence)often indicate a narrative discontinuity. Additionally, it is well known that inhighly stylized texts there is great variation in word order, especially inworks of poetry, where the rigors of meter often play a decisive role indetermining word order. However, these important points are not sufficientlyaddressed here. For example, the conclusions in Iovino's study on the syntax ofLatin demonstratives are supported by textual examples from Latin prose writers,with the majority of the examples taken from Cicero. It would be beneficial toinclude examples from Latin poetry in order to strengthen the main conclusions.

Another criticism is that some of the contributions seem to merely repeatconcepts of generative grammar that were presented over half a century agowithout adding any new analyses. Most generativists who read this volume willfind little new information. It should also be noted that in some articles Latinglosses are not provided. Even for those with reading proficiency in Latin, thearguments made by the authors are rendered less effective, as a nuanced readingof the examples may not be possible for some readers. Although the editorspresent a polished final publication, a consistent presentation of bibliographyand citations is lacking.

This volume is primarily intended for Latin teachers who seek to make conceptsof the grammar more meaningful to students, though a wider audience of modernlanguage instructors will find these proceedings valuable as well. The ideasoutlined help present grammar in a more cohesive and less passive way. Theseproceedings specifically address the need for scholarly articles that explaintechniques for teaching grammar from a formal linguistics perspective.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
Jason Doroga is a doctoral candidate in Hispano-Romance Philology and
Linguistics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His current research
focuses on the grammaticalization of the past participle in compound tenses
in Spanish and Portuguese. He also studies the morphology of
unaccusative-type participles in perfective constructions.